X Leaves the Spot for San Diego: 11 years, $280M

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,703
What is the current payroll projection? I’d imagine that adding something like Elvis Andrus, Seth Lugo, and Wil Myers would likely cost $35-$40M aav…I think they will spent but it will most likely be on short term deals when possible.
I really don't think Elvis Andrus is happening. Doesn't make sense to me to staff a guy on the tail end of his career like that — no upside whatsoever. I think I'd rather see them just give the job to Arroyo. I'm sure they've checked in on Lugo but doubtful it's to start, and Myers isn't very good at all.

They have about $60M to spend before the first luxury tax threshold, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them go over. Adding Correa ($30M), Hoskins ($12.6M), Kepler ($8.5M) and Senga ($20M?) while trading Pivetta ($5.9M) and Verdugo ($6.9M) gets them right at the mark.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,332
Ann Arbor
After sleeping on it… I still don’t feel any better. I can rationalize things, but the reality is that NY shelled out $40M and 9 years to keep their older, homegrown star, and we lost ours, on the same day. And it appears we were outbid by over $100M. That just…. sucks.

If it’s accurate that the Sox organizationally want to avoid these mega deals because they’re too risky, then they need to take other risks. Like signing a Japanese player to a substantial 5 year deal. Or extending 7+ year offers to their good but not quite proven prospects (Casas and Bello sometime this year?).

Others have pointed to Houston as a model. They got Bregman, McCullers, and Alvarado to sign long term extensions. They’re working on Tucker. They’ll probably approach Peña soon.
I admit, I don't enjoy the amateur GM aspect of following baseball. I have enough things to deal with in life than to spend time trying to puzzle out the complexities of contracts and AAV. I don't begrudge anyone if they're into that, it's just not for me anymore.

What I want is to follow a competitive Sox team during the season. Last year we didn't get to do that for the last 3-ish months of the year, and it stunk. As of today, it's hard for me to squint and see the 2023 Sox being markedly better. Maybe they will be, and there's still lots of time to get there. But losing X makes this team worse today, and I don't like that at all.

All I can do is hope they have the wherewithal to get better this offseason and be better next summer.
Both of the above resonate with me on some level.

Yes, from a cold, mercenarial standpoint, I get the argument of this contract being too rich. And given where we are, I would have let X walk. And 15 years ago, I would have written some long post on SoSH about expected value and using this newfangled WAR metric, etc.

But man if I'm not jealous that my sister-in-law, who has negative concern with his contract, gets to tweet "#ALLRISE!" incessantly for the next 10 years and I get to tweet... "yay Dansby!" until his contract runs out and then its...?

There are two things that give me enjoyment watching the Sox. Winning. And watching players that I'm emotionally invested in (Mookie, X, Devers being the most recent 3). To be honest, if we aren't winning, I can bridge my time with the latter. The end of Dustin Pedroia's contract sucked. But at least watching Dustin Pedroia suck (even when the Red Sox sucked) didn't make me feel bad. Watching Pablo Sandoval or Carl Crawford or Hanley Ramirez run around while the Sox sucked made me feel bad.

I don't know if going +5% to keep a homegrown guy around is going to cripple the franchise's future. But to me not signing a guy like Bogaerts/Devers (who in a binary sense make the team better) puts an awful lot of pressure on the winning side or I'll have exactly zero reason to tune in.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,404
The reports about Bloom being happy as he answered X questions yesterday afternoon are interesting. Did he actually think he was close to signing him because they upped their offer to the reported final offer?
I think this is a fair question and I'll state the obvious: I don't know the answer. I suspect, though, that there are a number of possibilities that have nothing to do with whether or not he believed a Bogaerts signing was imminent. For the most part, I think the flurry of reports on social media yesterday that an X signing was about to happen were part of a campaign to build pressure on SD to increase what was already the top offer. I mean, even if we accept at face value that there were multiple teams at or above $200 million, the Padres offer appears to have blown them all away, which to me indicates that at some point Boras identified them as the winner and was seeking to wring every extra nickel out of them, as he should have done. It would certainly ahve been a credible story that he was coming back to Boston. We all fell for it...because we wanted it to happen! And SD might have fallen for it because they didn't want it to happen. Again, I think your question is a fair one, and I acknowledge that I don't know the answer.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,211
0-3 to 4-3
The 11 years is a concession to the team. If the player were willing to sign for $280M/15 years, the team would jump at that in a heartbeat, because it lowers the AAV for the luxury tax (and naturally defers payment unless the deal is front loaded, which is also rare). At some point, I wonder how much a team could push this before MLB or MLBPA felt was a mockery. If I were Cashman, I would have asked Judge to sign $360M / 15 years, even if I had to front-load most of the $360M into the first 9 years.

The Judge, Turner, and Bogaerts deals are all better thought of as 2-3 years shorter at higher AAV, with the team expecting little to no contribution from the player in the last few years of the deal. At some point in the later stages of the contract, the player will be so injured or ineffective that they will not play or be released. That is built into the expectation of the deal, and it is still better for the luxury tax than for the team to sign a contract of $280M / 8 years.

Now, if any of these players are cooked after 5 years, the teams get hosed. And that is a decent risk associated with all top-tier FA signings, but even in this case it is better to have the remaining financial liability spread out over a longer time.
Right. Which is why I said if you want to consider this a seven year $280m deal I still wouldn't do it. Would you?
 

BravesField

New Member
Oct 27, 2021
265
That's not the evidence people were citing re: Story's inability to play SS. It's his 8th percentile arm strength that will keep him from playing the position.

He's a superior defensive second baseman so I'm happy to keep him there, but of course that means the Sox need a SS and they're hard to find.
I wish I could find the video clip of an interview with either Bloom or Cora....In a nutshell they said X was the priority, but if that does not happen they have complete faith in Story sliding over to SS. Maybe they say that about any of the players....who knows. But, I'm sure the next time the camera is in Bloom's face the question will be, "who's going to play SS?" We shouldn't have long to wait.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,684
Ground Zero
The 11 years is a concession to the team. If the player were willing to sign for $280M/15 years, the team would jump at that in a heartbeat, because it lowers the AAV for the luxury tax (and naturally defers payment unless the deal is front loaded, which is also rare). At some point, I wonder how much a team could push this before MLB or MLBPA felt was a mockery. If I were Cashman, I would have asked Judge to sign $360M / 15 years, even if I had to front-load most of the $360M into the first 9 years.

The Judge, Turner, and Bogaerts deals are all better thought of as 2-3 years shorter at higher AAV, with the team expecting little to no contribution from the player in the last few years of the deal. At some point in the later stages of the contract, the player will be so injured or ineffective that they will not play or be released. That is built into the expectation of the deal, and it is still better for the luxury tax than for the team to sign a contract of $280M / 8 years.

Now, if any of these players are cooked after 5 years, the teams get hosed. And that is a decent risk associated with all top-tier FA signings, but even in this case it is better to have the remaining financial liability spread out over a longer time.
It’s also essentially a free option on those likely decline years. If you’re paying someone a fixed total amount, why not get the benefit of their services if they age particularly well or there is another steroid era or who knows what else comes along over the next decade. These are lifetime contracts.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
25,008
I admit, I don't enjoy the amateur GM aspect of following baseball. I have enough things to deal with in life than to spend time trying to puzzle out the complexities of contracts and AAV. I don't begrudge anyone if they're into that, it's just not for me anymore.

What I want is to follow a competitive Sox team during the season. Last year we didn't get to do that for the last 3-ish months of the year, and it stunk. As of today, it's hard for me to squint and see the 2023 Sox being markedly better. Maybe they will be, and there's still lots of time to get there. But losing X makes this team worse today, and I don't like that at all.

All I can do is hope they have the wherewithal to get better this offseason and be better next summer.
The above is 100% true. Our best (or maybe second best) player from last year left for nothing and now we're stuck with another shit team going through the motions in August and September while paying the highest ticket and concession prices in the league. But I guess we get to be happy that our team won't have to overpay a guy in five years when he inevitably slows down. But hey, baseball is all about management making prudent and efficient financial decisions and their ability to work a spreadsheeet these days, so Go Front Office! I can't wait to draft Bloom in the first round of my Front Office Fantasy Baseball Draft. Dude is a monster, I love the way that he can almost sign players. I mean, he's an absolute natural at that.

In these types of deals you'll always be overpaying on the back end for elite talent. That's just the way the market works. If you're uncomfortable doing so that's fine, so long as you realize you'll never, ever sign elite talent in that case.
This is where we're at right now until John Henry or Tom Warner decides that TV revenues suck and it's time to put "some sizzle on that steak!" and sign Hanley Ramirez, Carl Crawford and Pablo Sandoval v2.0.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,526
Manchester, N.H.
The 11 years is a concession to the team. If the player were willing to sign for $280M/15 years, the team would jump at that in a heartbeat, because it lowers the AAV for the luxury tax (and naturally defers payment unless the deal is front loaded, which is also rare). At some point, I wonder how much a team could push this before MLB or MLBPA felt was a mockery. If I were Cashman, I would have asked Judge to sign $360M / 15 years, even if I had to front-load most of the $360M into the first 9 years.

The Judge, Turner, and Bogaerts deals are all better thought of as 2-3 years shorter at higher AAV, with the team expecting little to no contribution from the player in the last few years of the deal. At some point in the later stages of the contract, the player will be so injured or ineffective that they will not play or be released. That is built into the expectation of the deal, and it is still better for the luxury tax than for the team to sign a contract of $280M / 8 years.

Now, if any of these players are cooked after 5 years, the teams get hosed. And that is a decent risk associated with all top-tier FA signings, but even in this case it is better to have the remaining financial liability spread out over a longer time.
I think this may need to be couched a bit. The 11 years is a concession to the team only if the AAV is sufficiently lower than what the player would get on a shorter deal. Like, yes 11/280 is better for SD than 9/280 due to the AAV and any excess value they may get on the tail end...but I bet SD would have preferred something like 8/205 or 9/230 to 11/280. While spreading the AAV out helps a ton with tax, it also just adds more time that SD will eventually have to deal with what is likely to be a really bad contract on the books. To take a more extreme example, the Chris Sale extension was a 29m AAV over 5 years. I bet the Sox right now would have liked for that to be 7/145 to have a little more play room, but they would have loved even more something like 3/100 where it'd be over by now. While the AAV is the AAV and money will certainly be "worth less" in 2030 than now...that's still a real albatross around the neck when the Padres might be looking to extend a young, future star and need to work around that (unless X ages super gracefully which, well, I hope so!). It's probably more individually variable to a team's specific cap/tax situation, short and long term goals, etc.

I'm not sure how strong the argument is, but I really wonder how the dead weight of the bad end of deals for players the Sox signed who ended up on bad, long-term deals may have impacted the ability or willingness of ownership to push aggressively on extensions for cost-controlled talent. Obviously, that can be mitigated if ownership is willing to pony up the tax dollars of course but I bet it was part of the calculation.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,404
There's no chance Devers gets a $300 million deal here. We can judge the Sox by their actions over the past few years and they have shown that they do not wish to hand out contracts larger than around $160 million. They will spend over the luxury tax but they seem to prefer getting a bunch of mid-tier players than one elite player with that money. Whether this is right or wrong, we'll have to look to the standings to determine.

Devers will not be getting a market deal in Boston. If he stays it's because he willingly takes less than market value. We can all have our individual opinions about the chances of that happening.
I think it's fair to question whether the Sox will offer $300 million to Devers. But I don't think it's correct to say that they refuse to offer contracts like that at all. It's been widely reported that they offered Mookie $300 million over ten years in 2019, when he was 28. He's obviously a transcendent player--there aren't many Mookies--but I do think the Sox will spend for the right player in the right situation. Does Devers, who is 26, qualify? I guess we'll find out. I agree that there's no guarantee they will.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,095
Unreal America
I think it's fair to question whether the Sox will offer $300 million to Devers. But I don't think it's correct to say that they refuse to offer contracts like that at all. It's been widely reported that they offered Mookie $300 million over ten years in 2019, when he was 28. He's obviously a transcendent player--there aren't many Mookies--but I do think the Sox will spend for the right player in the right situation. Does Devers, who is 26, qualify? I guess we'll find out. I agree that there's no guarantee they will.
Henry made that offer when DD was still the GM right? I’m asking sincerely, I can’t recall. If so, I think it’s likely that the hiring of Bloom, and how the team has been run the past 3 years, signals that the Sox won’t be making a “market value” offer to Devers. They may not lowball him like they did X, but I can’t see them offering a 10/360 that we know another team will certainly do.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,239
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I think it's fair to question whether the Sox will offer $300 million to Devers. But I don't think it's correct to say that they refuse to offer contracts like that at all. It's been widely reported that they offered Mookie $300 million over ten years in 2019, when he was 28. He's obviously a transcendent player--there aren't many Mookies--but I do think the Sox will spend for the right player in the right situation. Does Devers, who is 26, qualify? I guess we'll find out. I agree that there's no guarantee they will.
I guess I'm a bit more cynical than you in that I doubt the Sox expected Mookie to accept their offer.

If they offer Devers the $300 million he would be expected to command as a free agent and he takes it, I will be extremely and pleasantly surprised. But I remain skeptical. It's consummating the contract after the offer that matters, not making an offer that never gets signed.

We'll see.
 

BorisMan

New Member
Oct 12, 2005
5
Why would the better player sign for an amount that was apparently not even close to getting X?
I was asked a question and I answered it. The $$ is flowing crazy right now. Unfortunately for the Sox Correa has the same agent so it won't happen that way. No need to even discuss it further. I know it.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
11,429
NJ
I am hopeful they extend Devers. I’d much rather that happen then signing X for 11 years.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,479
There's no chance Devers gets a $300 million deal here. We can judge the Sox by their actions over the past few years and they have shown that they do not wish to hand out contracts larger than around $160 million. They will spend over the luxury tax but they seem to prefer getting a bunch of mid-tier players than one elite player with that money. Whether this is right or wrong, we'll have to look to the standings to determine.

Devers will not be getting a market deal in Boston. If he stays it's because he willingly takes less than market value. We can all have our individual opinions about the chances of that happening.
If Devers right now was offered an extension of, say, 10/300, would he even take it?
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,404
Henry made that offer when DD was still the GM right? I’m asking sincerely, I can’t recall. If so, I think it’s likely that the hiring of Bloom, and how the team has been run the past 3 years, signals that the Sox won’t be making a “market value” offer to Devers. They may not lowball him like they did X, but I can’t see them offering a 10/360 that we know another team will certainly do.
It most likely would have been under DD, yes. Bloom was hired in November 2019, and I believe the reports were that the offer was made during the 2019 season. Again, totally fair to question whether there's been a complete organizational reset under Bloom. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced. For right now, where the Sox are in the rebuild, they may be avoiding these deals. As has been pointed out many times, the Dodgers had several years of shedding payroll, and the Padres have begun spending like this only as they entered their contention window. I can't recall exactly where SD was in the rebuild when they signed Machado, but that sort of kicked off their entry into BigSpenderville, and my recollection is that it coincided with the arrival of a bunch of their heralded prospects. If Devers is the kind of player the Sox think merits it, he's young enough that a good five to seven years of his contract would coincide what what we'd expect to be his prime. That would cover arrival and contributions of some of their better prospects. I believe it's an open question whether they'll offer him a mega-deal.
 

irinmike

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
494
Gainesville, Florida
The essence of this situation is simple. Fans care much more about their chosen team than players. The players see it totally as a business and will jump to whichever team shells out the most lucrative contract. That's MLB today and there is no reason why it should change given the Player Union agreement with the owners. The day when a player chooses to stay with the "home team" because of loyalty is long gone. Xander may have wanted to stay with the Sox but he found $280 million reasons why he would be looking for housing in San Diego. Pujols did the same to the Cardinals a few years ago, when he took the money and fled to California. The Cardinal management was very wise not to get sucked into a franchise crippling ten year contract. Pujols couldn't even run to first base the last few years of his contract due to injuries. The Red Sox management did the right thing by passing on Xander, and it will be proven as Bogaerts contract enters its middle to late years.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,095
Unreal America
It most likely would have been under DD, yes. Bloom was hired in November 2019, and I believe the reports were that the offer was made during the 2019 season. Again, totally fair to question whether there's been a complete organizational reset under Bloom. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced. For right now, where the Sox are in the rebuild, they may be avoiding these deals. As has been pointed out many times, the Dodgers had several years of shedding payroll, and the Padres have begun spending like this only as they entered their contention window. I can't recall exactly where SD was in the rebuild when they signed Machado, but that sort of kicked off their entry into BigSpenderville, and my recollection is that it coincided with the arrival of a bunch of their heralded prospects. If Devers is the kind of player the Sox think merits it, he's young enough that a good five to seven years of his contract would coincide what what we'd expect to be his prime. That would cover arrival and contributions of some of their better prospects. I believe it's an open question whether they'll offer him a mega-deal.
I understand you not being convinced. As for me, I just can’t shake that this franchise wouldn’t break the bank for Mookie, when they employed a GM who clearly had no qualms with seizing the moment and not worrying about the future. If not for Mookie, then who? Devers? I don’t see it, especially given the front office strategy shift. But we’ll see.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,043
Realistically if they wanted him on a contract as short as 6 years how much over on the AAV would they have had to go in order to tempt him back because $2.5 mil is laughably short of that mark? I think you'd have to get up in the mid-30s at least. Something like $35 mil/6 years. Even that might be low.

Feels like the Sox are in for some lean years ahead. Not willing to sign the ridiculous mega contracts and still years away from a Braves/Astros-like talent infusion from the farm- which is hardly guaranteed.
 

thestardawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2005
924
Section 38, Row 13
The OPS isn't comparable, but there are more stats than OPS. Plus, Story is an elite defensive player and baserunner, and X is not.
Story cannot play SS anymore. This has become the new transferring Pedroia to coach so his salary doesnt count anymore. His arm is toast. Cooked. Finished.

You are comparing apples to meatballs.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,479
Story cannot play SS anymore. This has become the new transferring Pedroia to coach so his salary doesnt count anymore. His arm is toast. Cooked. Finished.

You are comparing apples to meatballs.
I never said Story could play SS. I'm just, in response to someone else who brought it up, comparing one ballplayer to another, which is what happens all the time in baseball circles.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,621
Just catching up with this news now. Xander was great as a member of the Red Sox, and he was an important part of two WS champs, two other division winners, and another ALCS team. I enjoyed watching him on the Red Sox. And, sincerely, good for him for getting paid! I don’t blame him at all.

Now, as coldly and dispassionately as possible, I say: the Padres maybe stepped on a free-agency landmine here, and I don’t just mean in the usual “that’s a lot of years and dollars! Gonna be ugly in years 8-10!” kind of way. I haven’t read every post here, so I am sure I’m not the first to point it out, but I think going from a park that played to his strengths to one that does not, the decline in power, and the iffy defense all make me think this won’t go well for SD, and probably sooner than we might expect.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I am hopeful they extend Devers. I’d much rather that happen then signing X for 11 years.
I look at this off season and ask the following questions... How much will Devers think he can get as a FA? At 26 years old might he be looking for 12+ years at $30M or more? The majority here seem to have taken a thanks, but no thanks stance on the Bogaerts contract, are we good with looking at 12/360 for Devers?
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,043
The OPS isn't comparable, but there are more stats than OPS. Plus, Story is an elite defensive player and baserunner, and X is not.
Elite baserunning- if he even has that skill- isn't worth a hill of beans in today's MLB. Maybe that becomes a bit more valuable with the new rules changes, but he's also headed toward being 30 years old and will inevitably slow down.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,170
I understand you not being convinced. As for me, I just can’t shake that this franchise wouldn’t break the bank for Mookie, when they employed a GM who clearly had no qualms with seizing the moment and not worrying about the future. If not for Mookie, then who? Devers? I don’t see it, especially given the front office strategy shift. But we’ll see.
Again (and not to rehash) the same points. They did try to extend mookie and he was hell bent of going to FA (which is his right) IMO he signed the extension with the dodgers prior to FA due to covid throwing a wrench in the future of sports. He (rightfully) took what he could get from the dodgers at that point, rather than risk FA in depressed market). IMO he would have done the same thing with Bos if we never traded him and covid still happened
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,095
Unreal America
I look at this off season and ask the following questions... How much will Devers think he can get as a FA? At 26 years old might he be looking for 12+ years at $30M or more? The majority here seem to have taken a thanks, but no thanks stance on the Bogaerts contract, are we good with looking at 12/360 for Devers?
As a fan who’s sole desire is to watch winning baseball. Sure, pay Devers whatever it takes. The money ain’t coming from my bank account, and it’s not my job to fix things if deals don’t work out well.

But as I mentioned earlier, I’m not interested in playing amateur GM anymore. I just want to watch winning baseball. That usually involves having very good players. And some of them get paid a lot.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
21,827
Again (and not to rehash) the same points. They did try to extend mookie and he was hell bent of going to FA (which is his right) IMO he signed the extension with the dodgers prior to FA due to covid throwing a wrench in the future of sports. He (rightfully) took what he could get from the dodgers at that point, rather than risk FA in depressed market). IMO he would have done the same thing with Bos if we never traded him and covid still happened
They tried to extend Mookie the same way they did with X, Lester, and Devers to this point - with lowball offers relative to the market. Offer homegrown talent what they're worth. Add a bunch more zeros to some of those offers and I'm sure some players will suddenly be less hellbent on going to FA and you also might get out ahead of the market exploding like it did this year.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,479
Elite baserunning- if he even has that skill- isn't worth a hill of beans in today's MLB. Maybe that becomes a bit more valuable with the new rules changes, but he's also headed toward being 30 years old and will inevitably slow down.
I get your point, but obviously it's better to be a really good baserunner than to not be. I do think the game will shift back to more players putting the ball in play and contact and base running will become more important.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,933
I look at this off season and ask the following questions... How much will Devers think he can get as a FA? At 26 years old might he be looking for 12+ years at $30M or more? The majority here seem to have taken a thanks, but no thanks stance on the Bogaerts contract, are we good with looking at 12/360 for Devers?
In this market, I would give 12/360 to Devers without blinking, if that locks him up.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,433
Wasn’t Betts also hell bent on going to free agency, at least in part, because of dissatisfaction over the whole process dating back to when the Sox took him to arbitration? He got $10.5 when the Sox offered $7.0.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,684
Ground Zero
Just catching up with this news now. Xander was great as a member of the Red Sox, and he was an important part of two WS champs, two other division winners, and another ALCS team. I enjoyed watching him on the Red Sox. And, sincerely, good for him for getting paid! I don’t blame him at all.

Now, as coldly and dispassionately as possible, I say: the Padres maybe stepped on a free-agency landmine here, and I don’t just mean in the usual “that’s a lot of years and dollars! Gonna be ugly in years 8-10!” kind of way. I haven’t read every post here, so I am sure I’m not the first to point it out, but I think going from a park that played to his strengths to one that does not, the decline in power, and the iffy defense all make me think this won’t go well for SD, and probably sooner than we might expect.
Xander’s career has been significantly Fenway-aided. His career road OPS is .758. Look at his stat cast batted ball profiles for last year and compare it to Correa. This is a horrific contract for the Pads. He’s going to be a lazy fly ball to left field machine in the marine layer at Petco.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,007
If this deal for Xander, 11 years and $280 million, was floated on here yesterday, would anyone have advocated for the Sox to sign it?
Yes, with the addition of “John Henry can afford it”
John Henry can afford any contract offered to any player. The question isn't whether the owner can afford a particular deal, it is whether a contract is a good piece of building a competitive team.

This contract is so far beyond what any of us, or any supposed expert, predicted for Xander. Literally no one, anywhere, was anticipating this as a final offer so we wish Xander well and hope the front office can adjust its strategy for 2023 and beyond.

Thankfully this all went down in early December not late February so there are still a lot of moving parts. Trade for bad contract that is added to a deal for a younger star? Sign another player from Japan? I agree with not giving out 10+ year contracts for players in their 30s.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,084
Oregon
For those of us who believe the prudent course would be to at least explore a Devers trade ... to where? It has to be a team with money, with prospects, and with a hole (or just a fill-in) at third base. The first two teams that come to mind are non-starters -- the Yankees and Dodgers. Who else would make a trade for one year of Devers in hopes they can get a deal done before he hits free agency?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,703
The OPS isn't comparable, but there are more stats than OPS. Plus, Story is an elite defensive player and baserunner, and X is not.
Elite baserunning- if he even has that skill- isn't worth a hill of beans in today's MLB. Maybe that becomes a bit more valuable with the new rules changes, but he's also headed toward being 30 years old and will inevitably slow down.
Small quibble, but X in fact is an elite baserunner. He's 16th of 118 qualified hitters in baserunning "runs" over the last three years (8.7), per Fangraphs. That's not quite as high as Story (13.3, in 55 fewer games than Bogaerts), so your comparative point stands. But this area is generally a plus in Xander's favor.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,933
For those of us who believe the prudent course would be to at least explore a Devers trade ... to where? It has to be a team with money, with prospects, and with a hole (or just a fill-in) at third base. The first two teams that come to mind are non-starters -- the Yankees and Dodgers. Who else would make a trade for one year of Devers in hopes they can get a deal done before he hits free agency?
Texas seems pretty near-term motivated right now and I don't think they would be scared by his FA risk. Angels to try to capitalize on their potential last year with Ohtani?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,433
For those of us who believe the prudent course would to at least explore a Devers trade ... to where? It has to be a team with money, with prospects, and with a hole (or just a fill-in) at third base. The first two teams that come to mind are non-starters -- the Yankees and Dodgers. Who else would make a trade for one year of Devers in hopes they can get a deal done before he hits free agency?
Why are the Dodgers a non-starter? I suspect the Giants, Rangers, White Sox, Mets, Diamondbacks, Cubs, maybe the Phillies could be fits. But yeah, it’s not that easy to find a match.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
30,851
Alamogordo
Just catching up with this news now. Xander was great as a member of the Red Sox, and he was an important part of two WS champs, two other division winners, and another ALCS team. I enjoyed watching him on the Red Sox. And, sincerely, good for him for getting paid! I don’t blame him at all.

Now, as coldly and dispassionately as possible, I say: the Padres maybe stepped on a free-agency landmine here, and I don’t just mean in the usual “that’s a lot of years and dollars! Gonna be ugly in years 8-10!” kind of way. I haven’t read every post here, so I am sure I’m not the first to point it out, but I think going from a park that played to his strengths to one that does not, the decline in power, and the iffy defense all make me think this won’t go well for SD, and probably sooner than we might expect.
I agree with you. I think this deal is really bad for the Padres, and they might regret it as soon as this year. Xander's biggest value is that he could play league average-ish shortstop while having a really good bat among players who could do that. He is a massive downgrade at SS defensively for them, and I don't think his bat is enough to put him in the elite category among 3B/1B/DH/input position here around the league.

Don't get me wrong, I love Xander and I hate to see him not be on the Red Sox anymore.

But I also kind of hate this deal for the Padres.
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
5,057
Dorchester, MA
What gets me is the media. All day on Twitter we heard that X had momentum in signing with the Red Sox. These MLB journalists are no way a insider like Woj is for the NBA.
NBA and MLB free agency are apples and oranges. In the NBA, everyone know what the max contract (term and amount) is, and it's just a player picking between the teams that can offer that. In MLB, agents work journalists to establish leverage because the term and amount are wildly variable.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,422
Why are the Dodgers a non-starter? I suspect the Giants, Rangers, White Sox, Mets, Diamondbacks, Cubs, maybe the Phillies could be fits. But yeah, it’s not that easy to find a match.
If I were in charge of getting max value for Devers, I'd call Seattle and try to build something around Kelenic and one of their young pitchers. But I'm with those who would rather overpay him than trade him.
 

mr_smith02

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2003
4,440
Upstate NY
The essence of this situation is simple. Fans care much more about their chosen team than players. The players see it totally as a business and will jump to whichever team shells out the most lucrative contract. That's MLB today and there is no reason why it should change given the Player Union agreement with the owners. The day when a player chooses to stay with the "home team" because of loyalty is long gone. Xander may have wanted to stay with the Sox but he found $280 million reasons why he would be looking for housing in San Diego. Pujols did the same to the Cardinals a few years ago, when he took the money and fled to California. The Cardinal management was very wise not to get sucked into a franchise crippling ten year contract. Pujols couldn't even run to first base the last few years of his contract due to injuries. The Red Sox management did the right thing by passing on Xander, and it will be proven as Bogaerts contract enters its middle to late years.
Arson Judge just took less money to stay with the home team, and multiple players took lesser deals this off-season for what appear to be personal reasons (closer to home, etc.).
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,084
Oregon
Why are the Dodgers a non-starter? I suspect the Giants, Rangers, White Sox, Mets, Diamondbacks, Cubs, maybe the Phillies could be fits. But yeah, it’s not that easy to find a match.
I guess I was thinking of making another "Mookie trade" with the Dodgers would be bad optics, but I get the point. Mets and Giants are interesting possibilities
 

Papo The Snow Tiger

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2010
1,462
Connecticut
I wanted to wait a little while before posting, because I shouldn't post while angry. But I'm super upset over Xander leaving the red sox. I'm not upset that the red sox over the contract itself. I doubt that the red sox will ever give an eleven-year contract. What I'm pissed about has nothing to do with numbers at all; what I'm pissed about is that there are two sides to baseball. You have the analytical, numbers side of the game where everything has a value. You also have the emotional, romantic side of the baseball. We watch these players every day, they become part of the everyday narrative. It would be overstating it to call them like family, but you do become emotionally attached to certain players. You start to love the things that they do. They become someone you can rely on, someone who'll be there day in and day out. Xander meant a lot to this fanbase, to the city and to the team itself. He was everything you could ask of in a player. Maybe analytically there are better options out there, but for the emotional side he was the best choice. I'm glad for Xander that he got what he wanted, but this one tears me apart because it never should have gotten to this point to begin with. Bloom, Henry et al never should have tried to outplay Xander, to risk it to see if they could get him at a lower value at the beginning of spring training. The front office bet on themselves, that Xander would regress, that no one would really want him, that they could low ball him and then get him even cheaper, and that if it came down to it, they could pay him just a little bit more. That strategy bit the red sox in the ass big time. For the second time in the history of the John Henry era, maybe the third time if you count John Lester, they bet against a home-grown star for some unknown reason and at the end of the day were left out in the cold. Maybe they couldn't match San Diego's offer, but I do blame the front office for allowing Xander to become a free agent at all. I'm getting a little sick of the same thing happening over and over again.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,433
I guess I was thinking of making another "Mookie trade" with the Dodgers would be bad optics, but I get the point. Mets and Giants are interesting possibilities
Oh yeah, I agree, moving him to LA would not be a good look, although no trade of Devers will probably go over well. The challenge here is that the pool of teams is going to get smaller in the coming weeks; Giants seem possible now but if they land Correa, I’d assume they’d be out. I suspect it’s difficult to trade any top player right now until some more FA’s drop off the board.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,084
Oregon
Oh yeah, I agree, moving him to LA would not be a good look, although no trade of Devers will probably go over well. The challenge here is that the pool of teams is going to get smaller in the coming weeks; Giants seem possible now but if they land Correa, I’d assume they’d be out. I suspect it’s difficult to trade any top player right now until some more FA’s drop off the board.
I actually like the idea of Seattle that @johnnywayback posited, although not centered around Kelenic. Dipoto is a creative trade-maker and they're a playoff team that might want to make a big move.
But it is a shrinking pool, and the question is going to hang over them all season. I'd prefer they sign him, but as @RedOctober3829 said, how they dealt with previous situations doesn't make it likely.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
7,377
Salem, NH
Outside the box contract offer:

6/$162 for the first six years. AAV of $27M with four vesting options based on games played and OPS+

Final four years, 4/$40.

If X plays in more than 100 games, he’ll earn $1M more for every point of OPS+ over 100, up to a total salary of $35M per year.

10/$202 guaranteed, but able to go up to 10/$302 if he continues to perform at an elite level for the better part of a season.

I wonder if this would be a good footprint for a contract with Devers or Correa.